Originally posted by Bosse de NageWere that I was as versed in it as Dotts or Bbarr. I'll have a go at one later when I have time over the weekend.
Try refuting just one then. I'm curious to see your approach.
(I treat all philosophy as a species of fiction, so I am not in the business of proof or refutation, but it's instructive to see how those who are go about their business.)
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePartly just because he is rightly considered an important part of the rationalist cannon; anyone interested in the development of western thought needs to be interested in Spinoza. Partly because there is real, refreshing radicalism in his writing, not least in his views on god. And partly just because there is a beautiful grandness and architectural beauty about the whole thing, that is (as far as I'm aware) lacking in modern philosophy.
I think so too, but I crave confirmation from authority figures, which, in the matter of philosophy, certain posters represent.
Why, for you, is Spinoza worthwhile?
Originally posted by dottewellSee that's all well and good, but isn't that more a subject of history? Maybe it's just me, but I get a real bee in my bonnet over the merits of studying the history of philosophy, rather than philosophy clean. It seems like doing history of art and claiming to be an artist.
Partly just because he is rightly considered an important part of the rationalist cannon; anyone interested in the development of western thought needs to be interested in Spinoza. Partly because there is real, refreshing radicalism in his writing, not least in his views on god. And partly just because there is a beautiful grandness and architectural beauty about the whole thing, that is (as far as I'm aware) lacking in modern philosophy.
Originally posted by StarrmanCan you have one without the other? Plus, what if Spinoza's right?
See that's all well and good, but isn't that more a subject of history? Maybe it's just me, but I get a real bee in my bonnet over the merits of studying the history of philosophy, rather than philosophy clean.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, I have to believe so.
Can you have one without the other? Plus, what if Spinoza's right?
Then what does he really say about the world? That existence necessarily exists and all of existence is one thing. He calls it god, but doesn't tie it to any powerful being as such, I might just as well term it 'universe' and be done with it. Outisde of history and prose I honestly can't see the point in it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course. I am generally skeptical about "First Philosophy", primarily because I don't think that one can do metaphysics and epistemology independently of one another. But it is interesting seeing someone as brilliant as Spinoza attempt to construct a comprehensive philosophy from what he took to be a priori metaphysical principles. There are some glaring errors, especially his conflation of logical and nomological necessity, and his inference (found in the TTP) from the claim that S can A to the conclusion that S has the right to A, but there are also some amazing insights, including his treatment of religious toleration, his account of the social contract and the problems of acheiving consensus from the state of nature, and his approach to Scripture. He is one of the most sophisticated of the enlightenment philosophers, so if you are interested in the development of western thought, and the relationship between religion and natural philosophy, then you have to read Spinoza.
Is Spinoza worth bothering with?
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you don't acquaint yourself with the history of philosophy, you won't understand a) what the great philosophers actually meant, or b) what motivated the claims that they made. Anyway, there are pragmatic reasons to delve into the writings of the ancients and moderns: doing so teaches one how to read carefully, to reconstruct arguments, and to amass textual evidence for an interpretation. It is not as though the more contemporary philosophers are particularly clear. Wittgenstein, Quine, Sellars, McDowell, these people (and others) are difficult to understand, but it is necessary to study the history of philosophy in order to get how they revolutionized analytic philosophy over the past century, and you can't understand what motivated them without being versed in logical positivism and the traditional British empiricism and rationalism.
See that's all well and good, but isn't that more a subject of history? Maybe it's just me, but I get a real bee in my bonnet over the merits of studying the history of philosophy, rather than philosophy clean. It seems like doing history of art and claiming to be an artist.
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't think so; I think without studying the history of western thought it's difficult to understand how and in what ways progress has been made, and therefore to practice good philosophy now. It's also dangerous to write off older philosophers as mere "history"; for example, there's much in the Nicomachean Ethics that is as, or more, important today than all kinds of texts on ethics written since.
See that's all well and good, but isn't that more a subject of history?
Would it be possible to practice "good" philosophy without having ever read a philosophical text? I guess. But it's much easier if you do.
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellI can attest to this. My dissertation is a defense of some key normative and metaethical theses of virtue ethics, an approach to ethics being touted as an alternative to both deontology (specifically neo-Kantianism) and consequentialism (specifically utilitarianism of all varieties). Virtue ethics is a hot topic in moral philosophy right now, and it has been at least since Anscombe's article "Modern Moral Philosophy". But when you read contemporary virtue ethicists, you realize that much of the debate internal to the sub-genre is a repetition of very sophisticated treatments of character, the good life, and practical reason that took place amongst the Aristotelians, the Epicureans and the Stoics. Further, you can't understand the motivations of Kantian ethics without understanding who he was arguing against. Kant's position on moral worth, for instance, derives from his objections to Aristotle's grounding of the virtues in an account of eudaimonia and his distinction between virtuous and merely continent acts. If you want to do good work in virtue ethics you simply have to have a broad understanding of Greek philosophy. It was much the same when I specialized in epistemology (a few years back).
I don't think so; I think without studying the history of western thought it's difficult to understand how and in what ways progress has been made, and therefore to practice good philosophy now. It's also dangerous to write off older philosophers as mere "history"; for example, there's much in the Nicomachean Ethics that is as, or more, important today tha without having ever read a philosophical text? I guess. But it's much easier if you do.
Originally posted by dottewellNo, but it's progressing steadily. I still need to write a chapter on dispensing with accounts of right action, one on the implications of fully integrating a virtue for moral motivation, and then one huge chunk on justification/rational validation of certain character traits as virtues. It's a long and painful process. Mellor? Were you doing metaphysics?
Is it finished yet? Part of me wishes I'd stayed on to complete a PhD. But I was bored, and had nothing original to say, and was frankly terrified of DH Mellor...
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrNope. My masters was on Wittgenstein and the so-called private language argument. I'd run into Mellor mainly at the Moral Sciences Club, and it wasn't pretty to watch.
No, but it's progressing steadily. I still need to write a chapter on dispensing with accounts of right action, one on the implications of fully integrating a virtue for moral motivation, and then one huge chunk on justification/rational validation of certain character traits as virtues. It's a long and painful process. Mellor? Were you doing metaphysics?
Excellent, I've been wanting to have this discussion for ages. Whilst I agree there is certainly some merit to familiarising oneself with the style of philosophy present in the work of the past masters, I can't help but desire a methodological approach to the study of that philosophy. I understand the need for knowledge concerning their premises, conclusions, methods and the validity of their views, but I grow ever weary of studying outdated prose from which to extract the essence therein. Every time I pick up a book on greek philosophy something in me screams 'put it down!'. Despite a weakness for Aristotle and some small respect for Plato, I want to throw out all the surrounding bumpf and just read a book on the ideas presented in their work. The work itself seems counter-productive to the transition of ideas and knowledge and more of a hindrance than not. Even Spinoza, who sets out his ideas Euclid-style, is a great mire of treacle to wade through. I can't help but desire a move away from appreciation and towards the teaching of technique, irrespective of author/time/prose etc.